Friedcat: Would it be possible to give a power estimate in Wattage per GH
BFL and Avalon came out with theirs so it would be good to be able to compare, I know you gave yours in Joule/GH, but there's no way to compare the 2 without having more info
Thanks
One Joule worth of energy is equivalent to one Watt of power sustained over one second. You do the math. Hint: Ghash vs. Ghash/s.The only reason Friedcat provided Joules per Gigahash and not "Wattage per GH" is that he understands physics. |
|
|
|
|
The IPO has been active for two hours, and a little bit over half of the units are gone.
|
|
|
|
With the nigga gone, does this mean the BTC price is going to crash? Liek.. I don't use BTC, I use LTC, but I do enjoy all the drama. So, what do you gaise think?
It'll crash for sure. It was crashed before pirate, so it only makes sense it crashes back down after pirate. Thanks for the insightful and eloquent post, and welcome to my "ignore" list. |
|
|
|
|
Now I feel silly for having doubts about BFL. Not only that it hashes like mad - it looks great, too!
|
|
|
|
Who said certification would restrict innovation?
I said that and I know what I'm talking about. Certification, especially in business, is always about defending the status quo, respective profit structure, and beneficiaries. When I am planning to buy a product, certifications and transparency are certainly an important factor. In fact, whenever possible (farmers' market, for example), I try to "certify" by myself by visiting the facilities. When this is not possible, I check certification trail. Also, certification "authorities" can disappoint me and lose my trust. I don't see the problem. |
|
|
|
Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.
All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum. Only for new registrations. After you register you can use Tor all you like. Right, after you are pinpointed then you are free to be anonymous. lol Right, and for good reasons. |
|
|
|
What are people who vote "ASICs are already hashing" thinking? The network hash rate has not skyrocketed - it follows the price as usual, indicating no change in technology.
Bitcoincharts.com estimates the next difficulty to be 3071917 (with 471 blocks left). If this happens it will be a 7.3% increase in network hash rate. Where would that extra hashing power come from? I think ASIC burn-in is a good bet. No need for estimates when we have actual data. If ASICs are hashing today and were hashing yesterday, wouldn't there be a distinct surge in hash rates? Do you see such a surge in sipa's graphs? I don't. Well we don't have actual data for the past week and a half. We deduce hash rate from difficulty. And difficulty was last adjusted 9 days ago. Try again. We do have actual data: number of blocks mined per unit time. We don't deduce hash rate from difficulty, we deduce difficulty from hash rate (again, based on the number of blocks mined per unit time). Every 2016 blocks (which should take two weeks if this goal is kept perfectly), every Bitcoin client compares the actual time it took to generate these blocks with the two week goal and modifies the target by the percentage difference. This makes the proof-of-work problem more or less difficult. A single retarget never changes the target by more than a factor of 4 either way to prevent large changes in difficulty.
You are right. But I do think we're seeing a surge in hash rate. Blocks are coming in at around 7 per hour currently (according to bitcoincharts). Variation. Go to bitcoin.sipa.be and have a look. Here is a relevant snapshot:  Clearly, the increase over the past month or so is about 1000 Gh/s per week. This would be less than one minirig sc (1500 Gh/s) coming online per week. Besides, we have seen comparable rate of increase whenever the exchange rate goes up. |
|
|
|
To promote transparency and enforce fair voting procedures, we require a real name and address for Individual members. We will eventually include address and name verification procedures. Please note that member dues paid to records that do not include a real name and mailable address will not be refunded. Thank you! Why address? Prevention of double voting can be accomplished using name ID only. There is no need for the foundation to have my home address. Passports and many national ID cards do not have address on them, so you would need to obtain utility bills for proof of address creating an unnecessary paperwork burden. I would be happy to verify my name using passport but I will not be supplying my home address. I hope the Foundation could reconsider removing the address requirement from individual membership. It would be very unwise to hand over your home address. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atfs-latest-gun-grab/This is dangerous and foolhardy. Yeah, it's like giving FED/CIA/FBI/MAFIAA all data necessary to imprison all dissidents on a plate (in case they would declare Bitcoin illegal). I do not like this. This actually works like a honeypot. I wouldn't be surprised if, in case of data leakage (which is quite probable), FBI automatically wiretapped all people on the list... Shouldn't there be an option of confirming one's Identity in-person ? For example by meeting one of "core members" in a public place ?This is totally a serious issue, jokes & trolling aside.Sometimes, reading this forum makes me believe the stupidity that there are actually two sides to choose from, and that I should be working for the CIA, FBI, and the BTF. This forum is a honeypot, and should remain a honeypot, for paranoid narcissists, instant experts, know-it-all pundits, wannabe criminals, and delusional losers. |
|
|
|
What are people who vote "ASICs are already hashing" thinking? The network hash rate has not skyrocketed - it follows the price as usual, indicating no change in technology.
Bitcoincharts.com estimates the next difficulty to be 3071917 (with 471 blocks left). If this happens it will be a 7.3% increase in network hash rate. Where would that extra hashing power come from? I think ASIC burn-in is a good bet. No need for estimates when we have actual data. If ASICs are hashing today and were hashing yesterday, wouldn't there be a distinct surge in hash rates? Do you see such a surge in sipa's graphs? I don't. Well we don't have actual data for the past week and a half. We deduce hash rate from difficulty. And difficulty was last adjusted 9 days ago. Try again. We do have actual data: number of blocks mined per unit time. We don't deduce hash rate from difficulty, we deduce difficulty from hash rate (again, based on the number of blocks mined per unit time). Every 2016 blocks (which should take two weeks if this goal is kept perfectly), every Bitcoin client compares the actual time it took to generate these blocks with the two week goal and modifies the target by the percentage difference. This makes the proof-of-work problem more or less difficult. A single retarget never changes the target by more than a factor of 4 either way to prevent large changes in difficulty.
|
|
|
|
What are people who vote "ASICs are already hashing" thinking? The network hash rate has not skyrocketed - it follows the price as usual, indicating no change in technology.
Bitcoincharts.com estimates the next difficulty to be 3071917 (with 471 blocks left). If this happens it will be a 7.3% increase in network hash rate. Where would that extra hashing power come from? I think ASIC burn-in is a good bet. No need for estimates when we have actual data. If ASICs are hashing today and were hashing yesterday, wouldn't there be a distinct surge in hash rates? Do you see such a surge in sipa's graphs? I don't. |
|
|
|
|
The motion is available for voting on GLBSE, and it expires on October 1st. I also urge everyone to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
What are people who vote "ASICs are already hashing" thinking? The network hash rate has not skyrocketed - it follows the price as usual, indicating no change in technology.
|
|
|
|
|
There is some constructive criticism to be found here, but there is an overwhelming amount of hysterical ignorance. Bitcoin is a technology. A tool. Like a knife or a voice coil or a laser or a jet engine or a convection oven. It's not supposed to fight Visa, Big Brother, wars, peace, statism, anarchism, capitalism, socialism, individualism, libertarianism, or government subsidies. Unfortunately, it doesn't fight stupidity and ignorance either. Grow fucking up and stop bitching and masturbating over your ideological views and fantasies here in public. Face the fact that not everyone in this world shares your values, your selfishness, your fears, your notion of freedom, and your hopes. Also, face the fact that many of those people different from you are perfectly fine folks.
|
|
|
|
|
Jgarzik made excellent points in #772. Also, BTF website is not available at this moment. DoS?
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't go through the whole shopping list, but the cards and power supply sell at the same price from vuugo - but you'd wait and pay for shipping, and get only manufacturers' warranties. So, it seems to me that overall this was a good deal.
|
|
|
|
This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.
I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.
THIS. We went from "Hey guys, what do you think about having a bitcoin foundation?" to "Here is the foundation. We, the powers that be in the Bitcoin world, already elected the board, wrote the bylaws, and had the website done with ZERO input from the community" Give me a break... and I don't want to hear that ridiculous "Anybody who owns 1 bitcoin can be elected to the board". Why not call for elections from the get go? This is just ridiculous, and it will most certainly kill Bitcoin as we know it. Satoshi wrote his paper with zero input from the community, and yet you have no problem using his protocol. If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.
This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread. This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation. I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact. Anybody is welcome to join. --- Overall, there is lots of confusion between the Bitcoin protocol and "Bitcoin". The protocol is decentralized, p2p. Bitcoin itself, in its many meanings, is not and cannot be "decentralized" - this is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
I approve of the above message.
You forgot to add the category to your signature. Also, you forgot to answer several sensible questions in this thread. Also, you promised we were going to have answers in the Town Hall thread. Just reminding you. |
|
|
|
I think Linux is a great "role model" for Bitcoin
Linux is not about money though. And money destroys friendships.  Excellent point. I hope board members take it to heart. Other than that, I welcome the foundation and look forward to their positive contributions. |
|
|
|
The BitThief exploit allows someone to 'leech' from the BitTorrent network without actually contributing resources yourself.
Is it possible that they are using a similar exploit to leach block discoveries from the bitcoin network without actually doing any mining on their own?
That could explain how they are getting so much hashpower (i.e. they don't really have it).
On the question of is it possible, yes it is theoretically possible to see a block submitted to the network and then publish that block quickly from a highly connected node and it will look like it came from you. So maybe that's what they are doing here. To be clear, though, the coins still go to the address in the generation transaction, so they can't steal your coins. It just makes it look like the block came from a different IP. I still don't think that applies here. How would this attacker get the private key to spend block reward? |
|
|
|
The BitThief exploit allows someone to 'leech' from the BitTorrent network without actually contributing resources yourself.
Is it possible that they are using a similar exploit to leach block discoveries from the bitcoin network without actually doing any mining on their own?
That could explain how they are getting so much hashpower (i.e. they don't really have it).
If this were the case, there should be an increase in orphaned blocks, right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
